U.S. SUPREME COURT
Employment Rights Under
the ADA in the Wake of High Court’s Decisions
By Barry C. Taylor, Legal
Advocacy Director
Since 1995, the United States Supreme Court has decided
numerous cases interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which
was enacted into law in 1990. Most of the victories for people with
disabilities have been outside of the employment arena.
Instances of favorable decisions involving the ADA have
included Court rulings that affirmed coverage under the Act for a prisoner who
was denied a reasonable accommodation and for a woman with ‘asymptomatic’ HIV
disease when she was denied dental services, as well as a ruling that
unjustified institutionalization of people with disabilities was discriminatory
under the ADA.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s progressive bent has not
carried over to the employment rights of people with disabilities, where its
decisions have primarily been conservative with restrictive interpretations of
the ADA’s employment provisions. For example, it ruled that people whose
medication or assistive devices mitigate the symptoms of their disabilities
might not be covered by the ADA , and that state employees cannot sue their
employers under the ADA in federal court for money damages.
In its past term, the Supreme Court heard three more ADA
disability employment discrimination cases. Naturally, many people in the
disability community were concerned that the Court would use these cases to
further erode their employment protections under the ADA.
The Court addressed three major components of the ADA’s
employment provisions: the definition of disability, reasonable accommodation
and direct threat. In each of the cases, it ruled in favor of the employer with
interpretations contrary to what is widely held to have been the intent of
Congress when it passed the law.
Enforceable Rights Under the ADA
While it is distressing that the Supreme Court has further
limited the employment rights of people with disabilities, it is important to
note that each of the cases focused on narrow and complex issues. Many articles
in the press have also overstated the impact of the decisions. Despite these
losses, employees with disabilities still have enforceable rights under the
ADA, as well as under state and local disability anti-discrimination laws.
However, it is critical to understand the parameters of the Supreme Court’s
decisions in order to know how to properly exercise those rights.
The following are important questions to consider when bringing a claim for disability employment discrimination. Each incorporates major points raised in the cases the Supreme Court decided during the past term, as well as in previous years. The name of the case to reference is listed in parenthesis following each question.
1. Does your
employer have 15 or more employees on the payroll?
(Walters v. Metropolitan
Educational Enterprises, Inc. 1996)
The ADA only covers employers with at least 15 employees on
the payroll. If your employer has fewer than 15 employees, you should consider
filing under the Illinois Human Rights Act or local anti-discrimination
statutes that do not require a minimum number of employees.
2. Do you take
medication or use an assistive device?
(Sutton v. United Airlines 1999)
The Supreme Court has ruled that if you use a mitigating
measure (like taking medication or using an assistive device), and you are no
longer substantially limited in a major life activity due to the mitigating
measure, you might not be eligible as a person with a disability under the ADA.
Therefore, it is important to either demonstrate to the court the limitations
you have despite the mitigating measure --- or that the side effects from the
mitigating measure are themselves substantially limiting in a major life
activity.
Another possibility for claiming coverage under the ADA is
to assert that your employer regards you as being substantially limited in a
major life activity. For example, if you no longer have seizures after taking
medication but your employer continues to treat you as if you have limitations
simply because you are diagnosed with epilepsy, you could still be covered by
the ADA. Also, you should consider filing under state or local laws that do not
consider mitigating measures.
3. If you are
terminated, can you apply for Social Security benefits and still seek recovery
under the ADA?
(Cleveland v. Policy Management
Systems 1999)
In order to be successful in an ADA employment case, you
must prove that you were qualified to do the job. According to the Supreme Court,
stating on a Social Security application that you are unable to work does not automatically
mean that you are unqualified for ADA purposes. However, you still must
explain how you can be qualified to do the job under the ADA but at the same
time be unable to work for Social Security purposes.
One possibility is to show how your disability may have changed over time. For instance, you could show that at the time of termination you were able to do the job, but afterwards your disability became more severe, making it impossible for you to work. Also, some people are able to do their job with a reasonable accommodation, and therefore qualified under the ADA, but if the employer refused to provide the needed accommodation, they are unable to work, and would be covered by Social Security. In other words, you can, under certain circumstances, be covered under both laws.
4. Are you a
state employee?
(University of Alabama v.
Garrett 2001)
The Supreme Court has ruled that state employees who sue
their employer in federal court cannot receive money damages under the ADA.
However, state employees can still recover nonmonetary damages, also known as
injunctive relief. For example, if you can prove that your employer failed to
promote you because of your disability, a federal court could award you the
promotion under the ADA, but you would not recover any money damages for the
employer’s discriminatory actions.
5. Does your
disability substantially limit major life activities other than those involved
with your job?
(Toyota Manufacturing v.
Williams 2002)
The Supreme Court has said that to be covered under the ADA,
you must show that your disability substantially limits you in activities that
are central to most people’s lives. For the major life activity of performing
manual tasks, the Court cited performing household chores, bathing, brushing
one’s teeth and dressing as activities that are central to most peoples lives. You must show that your
limitations include activities beyond your specific job. If you think it will
be difficult to prove that you are substantially limited in a major life
activity, you have the alternative of filing a claim under the Illinois Human
Rights Act, which does not require you to prove that you have a substantial
limitation.
6. Does your
employer have a seniority policy?
(U.S. Airways v. Barnett 2002)
The Supreme Court has said that while an accommodation
request for reassignment may normally be reasonable, the fact that it would
violate the rules of seniority system would ordinarily make it unreasonable.
The Court did say, however, that if the employee can show that special
circumstances demonstrate that the requested accommodations reasonable in a
particular case, the accommodation request could trump the seniority policy.
For instance, if the employer has discretion on when to use the seniority
policy or does not implement it consistently, you may be able to argue that the
employer should have made an exception to the seniority policy and granted your
request for reassignment. Since state law does not recognize the reasonable
accommodation of reassignment, filing under the Illinois Human Rights Act on
the issue would not be advisable.
7. Does your
employer perceive that your health or safety -- or that of others --will be
at risk in the workplace because of your disability?
(Chevron v. Echazabal 2002)
The Supreme Court has said that if your disability poses a
significant risk of substantial harm to yourself or others in the workplace,
you can be terminated under the ADA’s direct threat defense. However, the
burden of proof is on your employer, who would have to show that the
decision is based on current objective medical evidence and not on
fears, stereotypes or patronizing attitudes about your disability.
For example, if you have diabetes, an employer could not
terminate you because of a stereotypical belief that all people with diabetes
are susceptible to going into a coma and are therefore in danger of falling and
injuring themselves. Instead, the employer would have to conduct an
individualized assessment to evaluate whether your diabetes poses a significant
risk of substantial harm to yourself or others in the workplace, and prove that
this danger could not be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation.
Equip for Equality has developed summaries of the three
recent Supreme Court ADA decisions, as well as the major ADA cases decided by
the Court in previous years. These summaries are available at www.equipforequality.org
or by calling their office at 800-537-2632 (voice) or 800-610-2779 (TTY).
For more information about mental illnesses contact:
Alliance for the
Mentally Ill
NAMI of Greater Chicago
1536 W. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60622
312-563-0445
Fax: 312-563-0467